Much like Capitalism, the different ideas of governance should be viewed as implements
(tools) of survival. While Communism, Democracy and Socialism are all focused on the
pretense of providing equality, the tool known as religion is not. Religions differ
in their measures of social control by directives, but the people, their public,
their presumed mindless flock, are initiated into the fold by some standard of
subjugation to authority. And this is the same for how secular, or non-religious
governing structures initiate the assumed "cooperative" sometimes referred to as a
"social contract" which doesn't actually exist as a formal document. While there
are those who may view their embraced form of governance as that which is best for
a given group, it is not also focused on what is best for the species. However,
the truth of the matter is, none of the forms of governance in usage or as a
"drawing board" design, actually try to adopt a functionality of total cooperation
so as to assist all publics with acquiring basic, fundamental needs of individuals
or the entire species. All attempts in this direction have resorted to the usage
of some type of central command structure that is initially assumed based on one
or another criteria such as resource quantity and quality, or mere forcing themselves
into a position without an adequate challenger nearby.

So called sophisticated, modern and assumed "fair" practices for determining
leadership have their origination in more barbaric terms of selection. The so-called
intelligent forms of modern selection by way of an electoral process, still retain
underlying methods by which a person can be muscled or bought into a given leadership
position. Methodologies sometimes include death and destruction, if an opponent can
not be intimidated, ambushed or set up for character assassination. In every instance
of established control, we see the wants of a person or group become defined as needs,
and those needs become defined as entitlements attended with the notion of sacrifice.
While most instances of sacrifice are not viewed in the scope of an image to the
sacrifice of a human on an alter, the death of people nonetheless occur in multiple
forms related to poverty, insufficient upward social mobility, incarceration,
suicide and murder through inter-personal conflicts and those with authority; and
the very many personal disparagements created by a system which is allowed to
perpetuate the ego-tistical desires of a person backed by a group, who see their
desires as basic needs that others should be required to sacrifice for, even if
they would vehemently deny a participating role in such scenarios.

Let's take for example the case of a so-called democratic party, where the idea
of an actual "Democracy" plays a chorus of conversation that is due more to an
inebriation of wishful thinking about a philosophical possibility that comes to be
neurotically misconstrued as a reality, simply because the length and depth of
conversing about an ideal causes the participating group to adopt the belief of
existence... even though a true democracy does not exist... and when it is highlighted,
numerous excuses are offered in defense of continuing the social illusion thereof.
The notion that a democratic environment is in full effect, is a delusion. The closest
example of a practiced democracy in this present age occurs in Switzerland, whose
size and cultural disposition affords it to practice a higher standard than that
being exhibited in larger nations with multi-variant forms of culture such as the
United States; though Switzerland's practice remains as a distant relative to that
which could be noted as a full expression thereof. An actual Democracy is a
philosophical impression characteristic of many another metaphysical formula,
because no one is actually trying to formulate what an actual Democracy is and
put it into practice. And for that matter, the same goes for an actual Communism
and Socialism. Instead, even with mixing and matching the best of all three, to
which religious inclinations of goodness could also be applied; we of today are
in a modernized era with an antiquated mental age. Listening to the different
social philosophies being espoused, one would think they were in ancient Greece,
Rome, China or the culture of a barbarous tribe engaged in various paganisms.

Whereas primitive tribes were organized around procuring basic needs of the group,
groups did not regularly join together to develop an organization to better assist
two or more groups. Groups may have typically joined together based on some incident
of protection from a common enemy or the need for cooperation in gathering a
difficult to acquire food source such as a large animal. However, different scenarios
may have resulted in the eventual combining of two or more groups. The fact is,
these early groups appeared to practice variations of Communism (Communalism),
Democracy (equal sharing), and Socialism (group provisioning of individual needs).
And though most governments may well describe themselves as participating in efforts
to practice all three characteristics under the guise of being a Democracy, as if
the word "Democracy" is best enabled to describe such a practice; the variations
of attempts to practice this three-in-one enterprise typically results in short-falling
some portion of the citizenry... particularly those whose self-perceptions have been
altered to interpret their wants as needs, and these assumed needs as entitlements,
and such entitlements as justification that others should sacrifice for them...
even though they may deny this and claim otherwise by deflecting their selfish concerns
onto some other topic to be interpreted as being worse... thereby making their views
more acceptable.

While different social theories can be viewed as exercises in thinking about
different types of motivation (such as physiological, psychological, and philosophical),
such approaches generally overlook motivations being carried out externally to
human concerns. Though the attribution of human traits to assumed inanimate matter
was a typical characteristic used by primitive societies and individuals today who
attempt to explore basic processes of thinking and imagery in an effort to evoke
primivities of consideration which may be applied to modern experiences of art,
music, and analysis in different subject areas; such a usage of anthropomorphism
is generally felt to be unworthy of present day logic structures. Nonetheless, as
an analogy or metaphor, it can be use to help some recognize a distinction of
environmental activity whose movements can be interpreted as impressions of organic
activity, though consistency and regularity also promote the considerations of
mechanical activity. Such a situation lends itself in divulging a frequent problem
with respect to those attempting to secure for themselves an advanced form of
sociological thinking. In other words, those who are trying to develop an idea for
a better society, though they may be quite adept at comprehending human motivations
in human situations, they are particularly naive when placing their analysis in
the context of environmental "motivations". Hence, human needs are subject to being
altered by effects of the environment.

Abraham Maslow's "Hierarchy of Needs" chart is an expression of human (or anthropo)-
centricism. It is a form of introversion that does not adequately account for
alterations in the structure of assumed needs, created by recurring environmental
changes. In a sense, such changes... many of which are quite regular in occurrence,
if not appearance, are "motivations" that need to be incorporated as a variable
in our deductions of our presumed "needs". Plainly put, if one lives in a desert,
or a jungle, or in the arctic, or on a small island... different environments
can alter the structural scaffolding of needs... making some more prominently
important than others would be in different situations. For example, the need for
locating a water source would be different if one lived in a desert or the arctic.
While the need for water has not changed as a basic physiological need, the importance
of the need has a different level of prioritization if it is readily available.
Alterations in the environment could alter the prioritization, by presenting
people with the inclination to prioritize a desire or want instead, because of an
actual or contrived scarcity. While some sociological analysis and ideas may
incorporate some variation of a "Needs Hierarchy" that may or may not include
the variables of change related to environmental changes, diseases, wars, etc.,
such an embodiment of ideas is not a standardized formula of sociological evaluation.
Most are highly selective.

As has been pointed out several times in previous pages of this series of
essays, there are ongoing incremental changes taking place in the Universe, Galaxy,
and this Planetary system that humanity can do nothing about. Whereas we can slow
down the types of environmental destruction caused by human activity, we can not
stop the eventual demise of the planet's eco-system. Humans, at present, do not
have the means to stop the Universe from expanding, and perhaps find it worse if
they could. Likewise, humans can not stop "their" galaxy from expanding, nor the
Sun expanding as it burns out. And humans can not stop the Sun from possible
engulfing the inner-most three planets or keep the Moon from receding... much less
stop the Earth's rotation from slowing down. Life as it is presently being practiced
on Earth, in this solar system within this galaxy and Universe, are headed along
a course of an eventual total demise. However, the demise is already underway, and
current systems of government are effectively playing part in the scenario because
they are expressions of wrongly practiced "Needs Hierarchies".

If we use the ongoing incremental decadence of the Sun, Earth and Moon complex
as the starting point from which we gauge human needs, Social governance and economic
systems change dramatically... particularly if we do not permit the idea of "incremental
changes over large expanses of time" to be used as a major ingredient of dilution
in our developmental ideologies that provide us an excuse for not pursuing the need
for establishing a prolonged survival rate as a preeminent need of the species, without
sacrificing the existence of individuality. In other words, we should not view of
industry of human clones or robotic mechanisms as more profitable for the existence
of the species when such activities are used for the profits of individuals or
individual groups... who have an underlying philosophy of surrendering to the idea
of an eventual demise of the species whereby a few should thus be enabled to consume
the lion's share of remaining resources. When prolongation of the species is
possible beyond the time-lines of the Moon, Earth and Sun's existence, it is this
extension that should be sought for. And if discovery of other life-sustaining
planets are found, the problems which arise because of the senseless social ego-tisms
taking place today, may be somewhat forestalled by way of dispersal, instead of
war and conflict as are not being played out.

The incremental events of solar, earthly and lunar decay are "motivations" which
affect socialization of the human species because there is an ongoing survival
requirement to make equilibrium adjustments. Social theorists do not typically take
such "motivations" in account in their deductions of human motivation for calculating
social theories which can deal effectively with both the good and bad elements of
human activity; which are ineffectually being addressed by such political organizations
as labor, Republicans, Democrats, Liberals, Conservatives, Independents and the
like... however named or so organized. Such organizations are too ego-centric because
they are drawn into dealing with the ego-centricities of opposing views. And though
they may cooperate under the instance of a priority which over-rides their selfish
concerns, once the "distraction" is resolved, they generally return to old habits.
The duration and depth of such distractions are not enough to retrain thinking along
the lines of a larger comprehension of needs relating to the species. It is the
needs of particular individuals which are being addressed by current sociological
ideologies, whose redirection might be an issue which makes them vulnerable to
attack by those who may claim an agreement to change, only as a means of getting
another to lower their guard. Words and deeds of commitment from one generation
to the next must be written into all constitutions that if broken, should be dealt
with by all in a unilaterally decisive measure.

But we can not rely on an institution such as the United Nations to protect
values that are not embraced by individual nations who would need no ongoing
individual representation if all actually agreed with given stipulations of
cooperation. Because the United Nations is not widely respected, and is often
rejected because of suspicions of harboring individualized ulterior social
motivations... such that the environment of the UN is viewed as a collaboratively
paid for atmosphere of effecting untoward personal social activities; its presumed
unity is often viewed as a cooperating disunity of pretended functionality, without
which the actual ongoing fractionization would nonetheless be worse. Far too many
countries practice a hierarchy of basic needs revolving around the interests of
a given person or group, and do not share a common goal of philosophy viewed as
a philosophy of lofted intellectualisms without the practicality of desired materialisms.
The larger part of human living today are too selfish to sacrifice themselves for
a goal to enhance the well-being of the species, because their practiced organizations
of social governance are formulated on selfish concerns. It's not that other, more
desirable forms of a "Needs Hierarchy" can't be devised, it's just that they, like
economic systems, are designed to promote and secure the existence of a government
system dedicated to selfishness.

Despite all the expressions of government charity and concern for the well-being
of citizens, there is an underlying selfishness at play. Humanity has not collectively
learned to individually think as a species without the expectation of owing deference
to those or that claiming authority, be it of a business, government or religious
nature. Humans are expect to return gifts of charity and lip-serviced concern by
way of loyalties whose price is not limited to patriotism, voting and allegiance
pledging. To be given something by those who view any and all resources in terms
of personal ownership, is the unvoiced expectation that you will, if asked to,
give your life for them. It doesn't matter if you live under an actual Communism,
Democracy or Socialism, the fact that it is merely said that you are, is enough
for you to believe it and give your life for it because it is defined, in word, as
the best for humanity... whereby any antagonism must be viewed as a threat, like a
pebble dropped on an ant pile.

If we continue to selectively apply some version of a Maslowian styled Needs
Hierarchy within the structure of a current social system, the chart is thus
subjected to a distortion along the lines commensurate with the ideology to which
it is applied. It thus becomes another instrument contoured to supporting the governing
system, just like the institutions of education, economics, and religion often
comply with... though will quickly change, in adaptive form, if the governing
system's philosophy is altered. Many institutions are little more than symbiotic
organisms which regularly adapt themselves to whatever larger creature they are
attached to. While leadership identities may change, and the configuration of the
institution may be lessened or intensified in structure and impositional effectiveness,
they persist in one form or another as a vagary of human conceptualization. Such
conceptualizations take on a life for themselves, and sometimes impose their needs
on a governing system so that it will be more amicable to their survival. Symbiotic
hosts will try to fight off any thing that is perceived as a threat to the present
style of their existence.

And like many virulent diseases, they can be difficult to extricate from their
existence because governing systems often act as breeding grounds... like a
sustained pool of water for disease carrying mosquitoes. Current systems of government
very often act as stagnant pools of water that do not want to be refreshed by
ideological improvements because the many insects which have evolved to exist under
prevailing conditions, are used as defense mechanisms to maintain the status quo.
In effect, a New Government ideology has to address the issue of being attacked by
multiple types of collective and individual outposts... some of which are not even
socially recognized as a potential fighting force, like many groups of independent
fight forces which existed prior to the development of a National Military service...
an organizational move that was not carried out by a unanimous vote, but by an
imposition of a few claiming an authoritative command position... based on a hierarchy
of traditional observations aligned with a supportive cognitive hierarchy of deferred
to suppositions.

If we alter the above "Needs Hierarchy" because there is an overriding biological,
physiological and psychological need to do so, by placing it into a more realistic
environmental context exceeding the very many petty National and Global concerns;
then we can think in terms of developing a social philosophy better suited to our
knowledge base and long-term sustainable and survivable growth needs. As it stands,
because of an increasing world population, sustainable growth needs is a pipe dream.
It is like the proverbial expression of (someone) stealing from Peter to pay Paul who, we
might add, owes Phyllis for "services rendered" (sex, cleaning, labor, etc.),
who is forced to provide a share to Peter because he claims an authoritative role
and must make up for the losses due to employee theft (by someone) that owes Paul...
in a vicious cycle of stupid economic practices highly reminiscent of a Ponzi scheme,
however and by whomever it is so named and convoluted to disguise the mind-numbing
cyclicity that does not truly benefit the whole of the species in the very long-term.

While such a cyclicity does help individuals, such individuals characteristically
perceive the world through the telescope of a mirror which reflects back on
themselves. This is the definition of their altruism. Like the arguments used to
support the idea that an accumulation of wealth (through taxes, business, or tithing)
can be used to benefit all by way of establishing a needed infrastructure to deal
more effectively with individual variants of needs; individuals claim their large
profit can be used to benefit all whereas individual small profits are
incapable of doing so... yet only small tokens of the "can be" ever become factual
exercises. When excesses of accumulated funds are used to pay for frivolous government
constructions that were well known in advance to require increasing cost adjustments
but is knowledge that is instead used as a reason for stopping construction... the
fact that large amounts of money nonetheless exchanged hands goes overlooked. Such
contractual agreements do not also include the requirement of contractors to make
up the difference, or in the case of default, that every single penny must be
returned to the coffers of the people. In short, cyclicities can be used to undermine
the good which accumulated funds are claimed to be intended for. Under current
systems of government, there are repeated expressions of poor oversight and little
or no consequences for scams, because they are typically perpetrated by assistance
from government employees... or relationships therewith.

In order for the present systems of government to deal effectively with all
social problems, they must incorporate the realization of their own demise as a
form of sacrifice for the individuality of the whole species. The present phony
systems of Communism, Democracy and Socialism must all be sacrificed for a new
formula of governance whose hierarchy of needs is of need to be restructured
according to the reality of the motivational circumstances of incrementally
decaying environmental effects. The capacity of an inherent wisdom to reach beyond
our grasp by a practiced intent to see far ahead, has had to take a back seat to
those whose sightedness is governed by a vision with eyes set too close together,
as noted by those creatures in the wild who are predictably unpredictable. They
can never be truly domesticated, just as present forms of government can not be.
They retain too much of their originating nature dedicated to an inclination of
a coarse and wild disposition which is oriented in bringing up the children of
its populations in their own image. It is not only an image of camouflaged
narcissism, but concealed deviousness interpreted as strategy and defined as an
evolved sophistication.

The "Needs Hierarchy" of Maslow is suited for application in governing styles
which can arbitrarily alter the prioritization to fulfill the needs of those in
social control venues. However, it can be altered to perform the functionality of
a prism by which multiplicity can be altered into an effective singularity with
everyone as a cooperative participator. In the following two images, let us note
that one is assumed to be "normal" because the language of the words being used
to label individual parts can be easily understood without too much effort. Yet
in the second image, which is a reversal of the first, we may think it to be
an incorrect version because the language appears to be scrambled. Because many are
used to viewing content from left to right, our cognitive structures are aligned
with this arrangement. And even if we typically viewed in a right to left fashion,
the labeling with coincide with this arrangement. But, by leaving the language in
the assumed scrambled form, the point to be made is that we can flip the orientation
of our cognitive structures around like many creative thinking person does anyway,
in order to better grasp the notion of flip-flopping Masolow's chart into becoming
a road sign along a path towards a collective goal, instead of as a goal for what
appears to be individualized distinctions which actually promote instances of greater
selectivity, sometimes called segregation, prejudice and discrimination.

This is how governments are presently functioning. The government uses the talents
of the people as a tool to sustain its convoluted (social problem creating)
institutionalization who are encouraged to seek out individualized self-gratifications
as if this were the foremost expression of truth, equality, justice, liberty and
freedom... because it sees itself in these ego-centric terms and wants everyone to
be cast in this image. It promotes and rewards individuals who best represent this
type of egocentricity.

This is how society should be, where the combined talents of individuals are focused
on using the government as a tool by which the greater needs of everyone are sought
to be achieved. This formula of social governance would seek to promote and reward
everyone for striving to develop individual talents so that the collective goal
could be reached for the benefit of everyone.

At present, our governments impress upon us that they value a collective sense
of individuality, and thus project the image of pursuing a singular formula of
governance as the proper goal of individuality... in a type of tit -for- tat
(mutual back scratching) activity. But the recurrence of social problems indicates
that such a style of teaching what individuality means, is counter-productive to
any larger social goal. It is difficult to think about applying philosophical ideas,
however logical they may appear, if one is preoccupied with mundane tasks of
individual concerns being promoted as necessary by a government that tries to
conceal its ineffectiveness by describing social problems as being due to a faulty
citizenry instead of a faulty government. Such a pyramid of individual identity
must be replaced with the prism of a collective goal. Seen in another way, the
many individual talents of a nation are not being put to good use in pursuing a
collective goal, because the inherent abilities of individuals are being structured
along paths of academic and industrial exercises which are being used to secure
the maintenance of a government that refuses to accept itself as a dysfunctionality
that can neither be repaired nor rebuilt to the greater satisfaction of the people
as a collective species.

The problem arises when we attempt to devise the best means for developing a
New Government without disrupting lives so much so that chaos erupts because of
fear produced by confusion, and the occurrence of mis-stepped applications owing
to the unpracticed efforts of those who acquire a position as a directive signpost.
Not only do we need a plan of overall after-the-fact action, but one which will
provide a sufficient means of stability during the transition. We do not want to
use war, disease or some natural disaster with which to provide the rationality of
an excuse to impose corrosive methods of correction by way of coercion. If we are
to use an army, let it be an army of those whose can effectively communicate with
the needed bedside manner during the process of administrative care so as to mollify
the rough edges to be experienced by those whose emotional, physical and psychological
routines are disrupted and cause levels of anxiety, that... if left unchecked, can
instigate others to react impulsively in negative regards.

While speaking in terms of an New Government, the introduction of a single word
such as "Cenocracy" as a means to provide a focused premise, must be accompanied
by reassurances that attempts are being made to revise present governing structures
to better suit short and long-term goals. While this may not assuage the fears of
everyone, particularly those who would view any change as a threat to their standard
of living, compensatory exchanges must have the appropriate type and level of
equanimity. For example, while some people see a truck as a truck, some people don't
qualify a truck unless it is attached with a given emblem. Names, labels and titles
are very important to some people, even though the underlying functionality of a
given object, event, or practice is unchanged, a person thinks there is a difference
because they have been taught to identify individuality is superficial embellishments.
While transitioning from one type of government practice to another may appear to
be more difficult, the time and effort can be used as a means of justification since
expenditure of effort is sometimes its own reward... like the physical effort of
removing a tree stump though a mechanical means could aptly do the job as well.
The brain is sometimes convinced that a goal has truly been achieved when a
sufficient amount of brawn or dedicated perseverance has been applied.

And though we use history and tradition as a means of patting ourselves on the
back for the types of government we have, as if they are a grand achievement over
some past discredit to human consciousness, we can not allow them to serve as
shackles which keep us from seeking a greater promise to ourselves yet unfulfilled.
We are on the path of a New Government, termed a Cenocracy, because it is a reflection
of the species we are. We invite you to join us, as we will likewise be joining you.
It is a path for all of us to undertake.